I honestly think this is a great idea. Given the fact I bet a large majority of those who dont already know and are choosing to do Bross for they will not know that their public summit is not the true summit. I mean if there is a culebra ridge style giant in your face carin on the public summit most people would end up their regardless of height more for a photo opp. Just my 2 cents

KentonB wrote: I often use county assessor web sites to track down land owners for local climbs I do.

Would you mind posting the link to this site, something like that could be of great value to me(and others!)

Chris, the "local county" for me is El Paso... Here's a link. I have several other Colorado County Assessor map sites too (let me know if you're looking for something specific).

Park County doesn't have a map on the assessor's site, but it does have a parcel search. Since Bross is in Township 8, Range 78, and Section 21, you can search for all landowners in that section. I come up with a list of 34 landowners (all mining claims... surprise surprise!). At least we now have it narrowed down to 34! LOL

Bill, it it helps, I can send you the link I used for the Park county search and the search criteria... Although I imagine the CMC already has this information.

ChrisRoberts wrote:Would you mind posting the link to this site, something like that could be of great value to me(and others!)

If you are looking for county assessor maps the search term is "GIS" and the Colorado county. Not all of the counties have them, but most do. It will generally show public & private parcels, and ownership. For the sake of illustration, the Boulder County GIS [http://maps.bouldercounty.org/boco/emapping/] shows all of the patented mining claims, which to give an idea; look as if some dropped a pile of pixie sticks on to a map. Park & Summit counties have many more mining claims, so I can only imagine the density in those places.

The summit of Bross is in T8S, R78W, Section 21 – likely in the NE4SE4 or SE4SE4 – hard to tell without something better than Geocommunicator (a federal website). Running a search (T08 R78 S21 SE4) for the entire SE4 on the Park County Assessor’s website, http://www.parkco.org/search2.asp, there appears to be twenty-three taxable parcels in the SE4. Now this is an overly inclusive list because the summit is likely in the NE4 of the SE4 and the website doesn’t let you narrow your search to quarter-quarter sections. From this list of twenty-three taxable parcels there are only eight individuals/entities paying taxes on the various parcels. Someone would just need to talk to these eight individuals/entities to gain permission to the summit as they either own these interests of record themselves or they are paying taxes on behalf of the true owner and can get you in touch with them. As this is publically available information, below is the list:

jeremy27 wrote: Someone would just need to talk to these eight individuals/entities to gain permission to the summit as they either own these interests of record themselves or they are paying taxes on behalf of the true owner and can get you in touch with them. As this is publically available information, below is the list:

Or, as I already pointed out, you wouldn't need to contact any of them because of the fact that Colorado law does not require you to have permission to cross open vacant land that hasn't been posted by its owner (assuming the owner hasn't told you that you can't be there).

Still, thank you for uncovering that information. It could be quite handy to have those names available in the event that an atv-riding local decides to tell me that I'm not allowed up there ("oh, I'm sorry... so, which landowner do you represent?")!

Here's part of the section of law I'm referring to:

Colorado Revised Statutes wrote:...Except as is otherwise provided in section 33-6-116 (1), C.R.S., a person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land that is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to the person by the owner of the land or some other authorized person or unless notice forbidding entry is given by posting with signs at intervals of not more than four hundred forty yards or, if there is a readily identifiable entrance to the land, by posting with signs at such entrance to the private land or the forbidden part of the land.

Also, section 33-6-116(1) simply states that you don't have the right to hunt or fish on such land without permission (I doubt that is a concern to many of us on the summit of Bross):

CRS wrote:"It is unlawful for any person to enter upon privately owned land or lands under the control of the state board of land commissioners to hunt or take any wildlife by hunting, trapping, or fishing without first obtaining permission from the owner or person in possession of such land."

Last edited by coloradokevin on Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:39 am, edited 2 times in total.

coloradokevin wrote:Except as is otherwise provided in section 33-6-116 (1), C.R.S., a person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land that is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to the person by the owner of the land or some other authorized person or unless notice forbidding entry is given by posting with signs at intervals of not more than four hundred forty yards or, if there is a readily identifiable entrance to the land, by posting with signs at such entrance to the private land or the forbidden part of the land.

The only sign in that area (last time I checked) was posted by the USFS, merely stating that the summit of Mt. Bross is closed. That agency is not the land owner, they apparently aren't acting as an agent of the landowner(s) who haven't been found, and I doubt their signs meet that posting requirement even if they were the agent of the landowners (who, apparently, are still missing in action). Moreover, if the person on the ATV that confronted hikers up there does actually own that land, he would have to post the land or continue to sit up there and tell people to leave.